Was it necessary for the Unionist troops to burn "Dixie" to the ground?

Question

trust you?

I only ask as an Englishman.

Answer 1

They didn't burn all of Dixie. Except for in South Carolina, which came in for special vengeance from Union troops, the burning was selective. Much of the burning in SC was unauthorized by the generals and came from the huge level of resentment that SC was the first to secede and had, in their opinion, "started" the war.

From AJC.com:

"They did burn bridges, and they burned parts of towns," said Marguerite Copelan, executive director of the Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau. "They burned our cotton gin, which was on the north end of town. And they burned enough to create terrorism of a sort.

"But to say they burned whole towns doesn't make sense. If you really think about it, that doesn't work. It's too much."

"That's not what he was about," said Wilson, the historian. "He didn't burn every town he came to. He said 'I'm going to make Georgia howl' — and he did — but what he was there for was to disrupt the rail lines, to totally disrupt the (commercial and military) infrastructure wherever he went, to demoralize the population. That's what he was doing."

Answer 2

R T
The actions of the troops was not condoned by Sherman,they were supposed to forage only for food , but like everything else the tail wags the dog and a few spoiled it for the many . Remember most buildings of the time were constructed of wood so when 1 went up , it carried out the next and so far
. The total destruction of the cities was not necessary ,but it happened over 140 years ago ,can't punish the offenders now

Answer 3

No, but it was a tactic that helped kill the morale of the South, and proved they were defeated.

Answer 4

Sure. To prove that the Union rules above all.

Answer 5

Yaaaawwwwnnnn!!!

Answer 6

Will you folks stop whinning?

Answer 7

YES.THEY DID HAVE TO BURN IT DOWN . FOR ONE VERY GOOD REASON.THEY WERE COLD.